Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Mst. Ulfat And Ors. vs Zubaida Khatoon And Anr. on 6 November, 1950

Revappa vs Madhava Rao And Anr. on 22 January, 1959

Ulfat v. Zabaida Khatoon, , where it is held that an admission by a party in a previous suit is admissible in evidence in a subsequent suit and the burden is upon the party making it to show that it was wrong on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, though the party making the admission may give evidence to rebut this presumption.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mrs. Ammini Tharakan vs (Plaintiff And

Though it is open to rebuttal in accordance with law, admission contained in a plaint or written statement or in an affidavit or sworn deposition by a party in a previous litigation would be regarded as an admission in a subsequent action - See Deb Prosanna v. Hari Kison [AIR 1937 Calcutta 515], Chendikamba v. Viswanathamayya [AIR 1939 Madras 446], Lal Singh v. Guru Granth Sahib [AIR(38) 1951 Pepsu 101] and Mst.Ulfat v. Zubaida Khatoon AS805/94 -: 14 :- [AIR 1955 Allahabad 361]. An admission by a party in a previous suit is admissible in evidence in a subsequent suit. The burden is upon the party making it to show that it was wrong on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, though the party making the admission may give evidence to rebut this presumption. Unless and until that is satisfactorily done, the fact admitted must be taken to be established. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the statement which amounts to an admission was not put to the party making it, when that person came into the witness box. Here, the plaintiff, who was a defendant in Lucy's suit, had filed Ext.B10 written statement through her power of attorney holder and mother Martha. That written statement contained the clear stand that neither Lucy nor the plaintiff herein had any share in any of the assets forming the estate of late David Tharakan. This statement which amounts to an admission as to a particular state of affairs, has not been explained by the plaintiff either in the plaint or at any point of AS805/94 -: 15 :- time in any manner worthy of being accepted as a rebuttal. While it is the law that admission does not confer title, what we treat as admissions here is demonstrative of the plaintiff's animus in re inheritance to her father's estate. We proceed to discuss that aspect further in the succeeding paragraph.
Kerala High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S S Satheesachandran - Full Document
1